Lichen Flora of Rodnei Mountains National Park (Eastern Carpathians, Romania) Including New Records for the Romanian Mycoflora
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Folia Cryptog. Estonica, Fasc. 50: 101–115 (2013) http://dx.doi.org/10.12697/fce.2013.50.13 Lichen flora of Rodnei Mountains National Park (Eastern Carpathians, Romania) including new records for the Romanian mycoflora Ioana Violeta Ardelean1,2, Christine Keller1 & Christoph Scheidegger1 1WSL, Swiss Federal Research Institute, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected] 2Faculty of Biology and Geology, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania Abstract: We investigated the lichen flora of the main habitats existing in Rodnei Mountains identifying 283 lichen species, and one subspecific taxon. Of these, 67 taxa are new records for the lichen flora of Romania, and 182 species are reported for the first time in Rodnei Mountains. Considering previous reports and our results, 442 lichen taxa are reported in Rodnei Mountains region in total, accounting for approx. 35% of the total lichen flora of Romania. When comparing the Red Lists of Romania and surrounding Carpathian countries, our data revealed the presence of a high number of threatened species in the region. INTRODUCTION During the last years, various lichenological Mountains in a replicated design with a stand- studies reported new species for the Romanian ardized lichen diversity assessment. This study lichen flora (Crișan, 2006; Çobanoğlu et al., should also reveal the importance of conserved 2009, 2011; Yavuz & Çobanolu, 2008; Vondrák areas for the maintenance of lichen diversity in & Šoun, 2008), but at the same time, species the Rodnei Mountains and thus contribute to that had been recorded before, such as Anzina decisions about future conservation strategies carneonivea (Scheidegger, 1985) and Lepraria within this biosphere reserve. incana (Bartók, 1999) are missing in the current checklist (Ciurchea, 2004). MATERIALS AND METHODS 260 lichen species from 11 locations were previously reported in Rodnei Mountains (Ci- Study area urchea, 2004), and reflected the high species The Rodnei Mountains are located in the north- richness of the national park. However, the ern part of the Eastern Carpathians reaching knowledge of lichen species distribution is still their highest elevation at Pietrosul Mare Peak scattered in Romania and some of the species (2303 m). Most of the study area is part of the records have not been rechecked since more Rodnei Mountains National Park, established than a century (Bartok & Crișan, personal com- in 1932 and declared as a UNESCO Biosphere munication). Reserve in 1979. Conserved areas are well known sanctuaries Climate for threatened species including various groups of lichens (Goward, 1995; Zoller et al., 2000; Due to the position and orientation (East–West) Nascimbene et al., 2013; Ignatov et al., 2004; of the mountains, the climate is characterised Lackovičová & Guttová, 2006). Furthermore, by the Baltic and the Oceanic influences. The lichen habitats such as old-growth forest stands mean annual temperature decreases with alti- and veteran trees in extensively managed mead- tude, ranging between 6 °C at the base of the ows with their important lichen microhabitats mountains and -1.5 °C at the highest altitudes. are often lost in managed and perturbed areas Mean annual precipitations range from 1300 to (Wolseley, 1995; Thor, 1995; Scheidegger & 1400 mm (Gorduza, 1983). Werth, 2009). Sampling The aim of this study was to assess the lichen The sampling method was structured according flora of characteristic habitats of the Rodnei to the sampling design described by Scheidegger 102 Folia Cryptog. Estonica et al. (2002). Four main substrates were con- aimed at covering the types of habitat and stand sidered in each circular plot of 1 ha: trees, dead characteristics (Table 1) of the investigated area. wood, soil and rock, and for each we applied 6 The lichen specimens were identified based relevés. If the substrate was not available or it on morphological and chemical characteristics was not colonised with lichens, it was substitued using mostly the keys of Smith et al. (2009), with other available substrates, thus achieving Wirth (1995) and Tønsberg (1992). 24 relevés in each plot. All lichen species within For the crustose sterile species and the a relevé surface of 0.2 m2 were collected (except specimens that needed chemical analyses for the crustose lichens from rocks). identification, thin layer chromatography (TLC) The investigated habitats are well repre- was used according to the methods described in sented in the Rodnei Mountains and follow an White & James (1985) with solvents A, B and C. altitudinal gradient from wooded meadows to The specimens are stored in the Herbaria mixed and coniferous forests, to Pinus mugo of “Alexandru Borza” Botanical Garden, Babeș- shrubs and alpine vegetation with bare rocks. Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Each of the five habitats was analysed at two lev- els: conserved and managed (except Pinus mugo Data assessment shrubs and wooded meadows, for which only The importance of lichen flora in our results one type of management was found in the study was determined by the total number of species, area). There were seven replicated circular plots the number of new species for the region, and of 1 ha for each habitat with its corresponding the new species for Romanian lichen flora. We levels of conservation (i.e., 56 plots in total). The also took into account the number of species minimum distance between the plots was 100 m. in the Red List of macrolichens from Romania The selection of the 9 sampling localities (Fig. 1) (Bartok & Crișan, personal communication) Fig. 1. Location of the Rodnei Mts National Park in Romania, and study area with sampling locali- ties. 1 – Cascada Cailor, 2 – Rotunda Pass, 3 – Repedea Valley, 4 – Borșa 1, 5 – Borșa 2, 6 – Izvorul Dragoș Valley, 7 – Pietrosul Mare, 8 – Gropile, 9 – Bătrâna. 103 Table 1. 56 investigated plots (within the 9 sampling localities, see Fig. 1). Abbreviations: AC – conserved alpine vegetation with bare rocks, AM – managed alpine vegetation with bare rocks, PM – Pinus mugo shrubs, CC – conserved coniferous forest, CM – managed coniferous forest, MC – conserved mixed forest, MM – managed mixed forest, WM – wooded meadows, C – conserved, M – managed. Conservation Plot code Location name Coordinates x Coordinates y Altitude (m) Exposition Slope [°] status Habitat type AC1 Pietrosul Mare 47,5941 24,6365 2143 W 33 C alpine vegetation AC2 Pietrosul Mare 47,5915 24,6379 2125 E 10 C alpine vegetation AC3 Pietrosul Mare 47,5955 24,6505 2136 E 5 C alpine vegetation AC4 Pietrosul Mare 47,5935 24,6407 2171 S 39 C alpine vegetation AC5 Pietrosul Mare 47,6004 24,6231 1916 W 39 C alpine vegetation AC6 Pietrosul Mare 47,5994 24,6304 2193 S 12 C alpine vegetation AC7 Pietrosul Mare 47,5996 24,6279 2173 S 43 C alpine vegetation AM1 Gropile 47,579 24,6325 2085 E 7 M alpine vegetation AM2 Gropile 47,5703 24,6468 2020 S 24 M alpine vegetation AM3 Gropile 47,5715 24,6396 2004 S 5 M alpine vegetation AM4 Gropile 47,5739 24,6344 1085 S 29 M alpine vegetation AM5 Bătrâna 47,5699 24,6124 1915 S 24 M alpine vegetation AM6 Bătrâna 47,568 24,6116 1816 S 26 M alpine vegetation AM7 Bătrâna 47,5782 24,6032 1719 W 24 M alpine vegetation PC1 Pietrosul Mare 47,6018 24,6479 1785 E 14 C Pinus mugo shrubs PC2 Pietrosul Mare 47,5886 24,6472 1882 S 36 C Pinus mugo shrubs PC3 Pietrosul Mare 47,6019 24,6506 1788 N 28 C Pinus mugo shrubs PC4 Pietrosul Mare 47,5913 24,6437 2040 S 32 C Pinus mugo shrubs PC5 Pietrosul Mare 47,6014 24,6229 2019 W 33 C Pinus mugo shrubs PC6 Pietrosul Mare 47,6071 24,6113 1821 W 26 C Pinus mugo shrubs PC7 Bătrâna 47,5692 24,596 1781 S 30 C Pinus mugo shrubs CC1 Repedea Valley 47,5964 24,6918 1164 E 26 C spruce forest CC2 Repedea Valley 47,5952 24,679 1326 S 38 C spruce forest CC3 Pietrosul Mare 47,6059 24,6067 1596 S 32 C spruce forest CC4 Pietrosul Mare 47,6028 24,6054 1477 S 33 C spruce forest CC5 Pietrosul Mare 47,6053 24,6026 1470 S 37 C spruce forest CC6 Pietrosul Mare 47,6036 24,6002 1353 W 25 C spruce forest CC7 Pietrosul Mare 47,6014 24,6013 1316 S 37 C spruce forest CM1 Borșa1 47,62 24,6589 1148 N 27 M spruce forest CM2 Repedea Valley 47,5938 24,7012 1151 N 31 M spruce forest CM3 Repedea Valley 47,5982 24,7051 1375 W 36 M spruce forest CM4 Repedea Valley 47,6018 24,7087 1357 N 25 M spruce forest CM5 Cascada Cailor 47,6062 24,795 1275 W 14 M spruce forest CM6 Izvorul Dragoș Valley 47,5982 24,6022 1081 E 35 M spruce forest CM7 Izvorul Dragoș Valley 47,5989 24,6016 932 N 19 M spruce forest MC1 Repedea Valley 47,5972 24,6907 966 N 40 C mixed forest MC2 Cascada Cailor 47,5951 24,797 1207 N 35 C mixed forest MC3 Rotunda Pass 47,5244 24,9998 1044 W 21 C mixed forest MC4 Rotunda Pass 47,5284 25,0041 1089 W 14 C mixed forest MC5 Izvorul Dragoș Valley 47,6083 24,5874 863 E 35 C mixed forest MC6 Repedea Valley 47,5943 24,6815 1180 E 44 C mixed forest MC7 Izvorul Dragoș Valley 47,6016 24,5935 1019 N 15 C mixed forest MM1 Repedea Valley 47,5899 24,7002 1196 W 42 M mixed forest MM2 Repedea Valley 47,6149 24,6977 866 W 14 M mixed forest 104 Folia Cryptog. Estonica Table 1 (continued) Conservation Plot code Location name Coordinates x Coordinates y Altitude (m) Exposition Slope [°] status Habitat type MM3 Repedea Valley 47,6128 24,6871 1257 E 35 M mixed forest MM4 Repedea Valley 47,6146 24,6922 1058 E 33 M mixed forest MM5 Izvorul Dragoș Valley 47,6227 24,5758 903 N 32 M mixed forest MM6 Izvorul Dragoș Valley 47,6228 24,5858 930 N 41 M mixed forest MM7 Izvorul Dragoș Valley 47,6242 24,5957 915 S 5 M mixed forest WM1 Borșa1 47,6216 24,6494 1095 N 18 M wooded meadows WM2 Borșa1 47,6224 24,6396 1048 N 13 M wooded meadows WM3 Borșa1 47,6228 24,6325 1048 N 6 M wooded meadows WM4 Borșa1 47,6287 24,6635 1988 N 16 M wooded meadows WM5 Borșa2 47,6504 24,6356 783 N 10 M wooded meadows WM6 Izvorul Dragoș Valley 47,6209 24,6176 1036 N 23 M wooded meadows WM7 Izvorul Dragoș Valley 47,6211 24,6125 957 N 33 M wooded meadows and the Red Lists of the surrounding countries reported as new.